Re: MD What is a living being?

From: Paul Turner (pauljturner@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Thu May 01 2003 - 10:50:05 BST

  • Next message: Paul Turner: "Re: MD What is a living being?"

    Hi Rick and the rest

    > Here we can see that Pirsig was not saying "Static
    > patterns can't perceive
    > or adjust to DQ". Rather, he was saying that social
    > and intellectual
    > patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust to
    > DQ (which is why he
    > thinks society should preserve as many living beings
    > as possible).
    > Why is
    > this? Because after the rise of the biological
    > level, *life* became the
    > primary vehicle for DQ.

    Life meaning biological life? Aren't we like two red
    blood cells talking about whether or not there is a
    higher form of evolution than ourselves?

    I think I see your point though, killing ‘individuals’
    attacks the ‘biological level’, specifically
    ‘biological man’ upon which the next two levels are
    sequentially built. If you succeed in killing
    ‘biological man’ (i.e. the entire human race)
    completely the levels disappear. It would be like the
    human race destroying ‘carbon’. Less dramatically,
    killing any of ‘biological man’ undermines the future
    of the levels to a degree. Is that your point?

    >
    > In chapter 11, Pirsig states, "The chemistry of life
    > is the chemistry of
    > carbon. What distinguishes all the species of
    > plants and animals is, in the
    > final analysis, differences in the way carbon atoms
    > choose to bond."
    > Carrying this up to the next level, I think Pirsig
    > might say something like:
    > "The chemistry of society is the chemistry of living
    > beings. What
    > distinguishes all the species of societies and
    > groups is, in the final
    > analysis, differences in the way living beings
    > choose to bond."

    This could be a crux issue in this debate. In the MoQ,
    if we are indeed 'choosing to bond' in particular
    ways, it is not necessarily for our own benefit. It is
    for the benefit of evolution itself, for the
    development of a higher order of 'life'. You see, I
    don't think that from the MoQ it follows that the
    individual human being, or at least the common notion
    of one, is the pinnacle of evolution.

    Pirsig: 'Just as biology exploits substance for its
    own purposes, so does this social pettern called a
    city exploit biology for its own purposes' Ch 17

    > The way
    > Dynamic adjustment at the biological level
    > ultimately comes down to the
    > choices of carbon, Dynamic adjustment at the social
    > level (and the
    > intellectual level it supports) ultimately come down
    > to the choices of
    > living beings.

    The word 'choices' has connotations which may be
    inappropriate here. Are the 'choices' we make the
    'choices' which a carbon atom makes? Clearly we don't
    know, but either way I think they are made without
    full awareness of the context in which they are being
    made. Heavy stuff.

    Pirsig:'"Mankind" has never been interested in getting
    itself killed. But the superorganism, the Giant, who
    is a pattern of values superimposed on top of
    biological human bodies, doesn't mind losing a few
    bodies to protect his greater interests' Ch 17

    Superorganism - there is a real MoQ concept! There is
    something that has never been taken seriously in SOM
    but is as real as a brick to the MoQ. In this
    superorganism, a social pattern of value, biological
    human beings must be considered as like carbon atoms
    to a living being.

    And the intellectual level? If you follow this through
    then the intellectual level treats superorganisms as
    superorganisms treat human bodies. It starts off
    supporting it, practical science, technology but then
    goes off on its own purposes, metaphysics, maybe
    immortality as in freedom from matter and organic
    dependence, A.I., cybernetics etc??? I don't know,
    apologies, I'm seriously speculating here!

    Sounds crazy in a SOM description of things but in the
    MoQ, it is a logical continuation of the matter of
    fact evolutionary relationship between levels.

    It seems as though the intellectual level is
    interpreted as the emergence of the free-thinking
    individual. Now, if the individual human being is a
    super-superorganism, then yes. That may be the MoQ
    definition of a human being!

    > So to put your 3 quotes together, we can see... Lila
    > is a living being
    > composed entirely of static patterns of value
    > evolving towards DQ, which she
    > perceives and adjusts to at 4 levels by virtue of
    > the fact that she is a
    > living being (ultimately made from Carbon).

    Lila is a living being..... by virtue of the fact that
    she is a living being. It seems we can't escape from
    that, maybe it's a problem in our language,
    predication and all that.

    > hope that helps

    It all helps

    Thanks

    Paul

    __________________________________________________
    Yahoo! Plus
    For a better Internet experience
    http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 01 2003 - 10:50:45 BST